whidbey:Honestly, if we had thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency, this country would be sailing along a lot farther than it is now.

We should demand Obama live up to his promises!

whidbey:It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

utah dude:would anyone care to comment that maybe the NSA should use all this data to help American business kick some obama on the international/world market? i mean 1/2 those monitored calls / emails / etc... are all foreign obama, right?

Anything that any US business interests could possibly gain from industrial espionage is far outweighed by the SaaS/cloud business model becoming nonviable. If this is the future of the 'net, no prospect with two million dollars to rub together is going to rely on services from any US-based cloud startups, and that means that nobody with two billion dollars to rub together is going to provide an exit for the founders of said startups.

The quote in question from Mueller here is "We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone." Notice that he did not say "they could listen to the phone call," he said "get the specific information." Also, TFA does not mention this, but that entire discussion was about metadata (it was explicitly stated as such several times) which isn't the same thing as "listening to telephone calls" and The Supreme Court did rule that it isn't covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Now, it really would not surprise me one bit if the NSA has indeed been doing what CNET is alleging here, but after looking over what actually took place within the discussion, I'm thinking that TFA was a bit misleading, some clarification is sorely needed. Making hyperbolic claims is the last thing we need in times like this.

Corn_Fed:DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light. He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events. Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it. If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain? I personally wouldn't.

So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.

Sorry if I am late to the thread, but had to put my 2 cents on this - In answer to this, I would have to say the Honorable Mrs. Bachman - Why you may ask? - It is because it will really expose all the misogynists in the liberal (ahem) Democratic party.

The way she is demeaned and "Put in her place" by FARK libs is astounding. If you compare the public record of what she has said vs the public record of the Honorable Mrs Nancy "We will know what is in it AFTER it is PASSED" Pelosi - I will let you draw your own conclusions.....

Regardless of whether it is Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin - FARK libs (and the MASTERS -Yes I mean it that way- they are speaking for) dismiss, vilify, demean any conservative female who is in the political arena.

Notabunny:Biological Ali: This story was apparently posted seven hours ago, and yet I'm not seeing any mention of it in any major press outlet. Is there any confirmation, or are people just freaking out over nothing again?

People have come to expect the sun to rise in the east. They don't freak out about it.

Lsherm:BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this. What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing? Has to be some scary shiat.

Okay, so it's not just me.

I didn't really have a dog in the election fight. Other than a concern about Obama coming from Chicago, which has something of a reputation in politics.

However, I did notice fairly quickly that he went from "Campaign Obama" to... looked "Looking Sick as Fark Obama" and I'm pretty sure he didn't get a cold. I highly doubt the trained group of people who make other people look good, would suddenly just say "fark it" after a win. You want to at least show yourself as the winner during the post-election honeymoon before you go back to "normal".

When I saw him just after the election (and his first presidential meetings) he looked awful. His appearance was haggard, he seemed to be reeling a bit mentally, his eyes had dark circles...he looked exhausted, his skin even had an almost greyish cast to it, which I have never seen before but I've read about in books. He looked less sure of himself too.

From just an objective standpoint I could only figure one of two things...he had partied too hard the night before (some folks made reference to toking)...but that honestly didn't quite seem to fit.

Or....he had just been told what was *really* going on, and it had deeply unsettled him.

If I had had to take my best guess...it was #2, and I really hoped I was wrong.

But you make a good point. For a 180 degree turn around like that...without even trying to politically dance around it like normal.

GeneralJim:ghare: Nabb1: I'm sure the bootlickers will be here soon enough to tell us we have no reason to be upset.

56% of Americans want them to do it. Who is the bootlicker?YOU are. Do the questions get harder as we go along?

You're the one who by his own admission had access to secure data that should not have been in existence, let alone kept confidential, and you did not make it public; you returned it to your corporate masters. Now that sounds like bootlicking to ME; perhaps you have a different definition of that type of activity.

I was a consultant for the Health Department, and the database of all the state citizens with AIDS was left on a conference table, unencrypted, on a disk, neatly labeled, with nobody in the room. I picked it up and delivered it to the chief of security, who almost crapped himself. This was supposedly their "most secure" data. Right.

Fenrisulfr:Corn_Fed: So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.

Sorry if I am late to the thread, but had to put my 2 cents on this - In answer to this, I would have to say the Honorable Mrs. Bachman - Why you may ask? - It is because it will really expose all the misogynists in the liberal (ahem) Democratic party.

The way she is demeaned and "Put in her place" by FARK libs is astounding. If you compare the public record of what she has said vs the public record of the Honorable Mrs Nancy "We will know what is in it AFTER it is PASSED" Pelosi - I will let you draw your own conclusions.....

Regardless of whether it is Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin - FARK libs (and the MASTERS -Yes I mean it that way- they are speaking for) dismiss, vilify, demean any conservative female who is in the political arena.

Af ...

I'd be ALL in favor of that too, but definitely not for the reasons you cited.

R.A.Danny:whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.

Whoever might have convinced us that a lying politician like Obama might end this?

I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Oh yea. He did.

And?

You are once again playing the foolish and dishonest game of comparing a real candidate to an imaginary one. You accuse everyone who ever supports Obama of being a shill, further accuse them of never criticizing him (even when they are criticizing them in the very thread in which you make the accusation), and then you somehow feel compelled to point out things to them that they already know like it is some kind of zinger. You are a broken and inaccurate record. What you may not realize is that by ranting about everything he does as the worst thing ever, you aren't helping and you simply come off as a loon and a conspiracy nut. In this thread, which I haven't read the full thread I admit, you are the stopped clock that happens to be right.

whidbey:R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.

Like the First Amendment?The Second?The Third?The Fourth? ...Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.

You can't blame people. People will never change. Systems, however, CAN be changed.

People can and have been inspired to change. Just in the past 50 years alone.

Again, the system is for all of us. The vast majority of the people DO NOT USE IT.

thrown every ounce of our support to the Democratic Party, telling the Republicans to fark off

You mean like in the 111th Congress?

ANY Congress. People seem to think we just hand over the keys to Congress and they're going to automagically do the right thing. You know as well as I do that people have to become more involved no matter, whatever system we're talking about. And so far, we have the best system available, and a strongly polarized populace, mostly because of the far right in this society.

and holding Obama et al to a high standard of transparency

How? You've already foresworn all leverage by guaranteeing you'll vote for him. Why should he listen to you? Because he's a nice guy and he owes you one?

Again, the reason is because our level of support all but tapers off after an election. We need the kind of dialogue we're having now about PATRIOT all the time.

It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Are you sure you're not actually a Leninist?

Surrealist non-sequitur much? I'm a moderate liberal.

Again, I have asked you repeatedly what your solution is to the current system, and I know damn well you don't have one.

Any proposal for a strategy which doesn't include winning elections sails right past your eyes.

Well I hate to break it to you, but we are a representative democracy, and elections are very important.

How about instead of wasting time pointing fingers, people come up with an effective grass-roots campaign/election reform strategy? Too weird for you, huh?

R.A.Danny:whidbey: R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.

Like the First Amendment?The Second?The Third?The Fourth? ...Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.

Yes, but part of progressing as a society is the acknowledgement that none of these rights are absolute, and are allowed interpretation through judicial review.

There's really only one solution for this. Every single communication, even something as innocuous as inviting your Mom over for coffee, needs to include encryption as an attachment. Your Mom can still read the plain text, but you should include the encryption block. Note: do not commit the n00b error of actually encrypting your plaintext, because that will provide a cryptographic nonce making it easier for TPTB to break your keys.

Instead, I suggest generating a pseudorandom stream equivalent in length to your plaintext, and encrypt it with a random public key acquired through searching Bing.

Implementation of this in a Chrome plugin to attach a crypto block to every single Hotmail or Gmail message you send is left as an exercise for the reader.

The benefit: by attaching encryption to every single message, you attract the attention of the crypto search keywords (after all, who else but a terrorist would use encryption?) This leads to resource starvation, and provides cover for you when you do eventually send a cryptoblock to a friend using their actual public key, with different plaintext, i.e., the real message.

R.A.Danny:whidbey: Yes, but part of progressing as a society is the acknowledgement that none of these rights are absolute, and are allowed interpretation through judicial review.

Has the recent review been enough or do we keep reviewing until we get the answer you want?

Obviously PATRIOT needs to be overturned as un-Constitutional, the NSA needs to be put on a short leash, and, along with the ACLU, I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that gun rights are individual versus collective.

Not the first time we've had to urge the powers that be to recognize present-day needs.

I don't have any idea who to vote for... Bush authorized it, Obama abused it... seems like most of the congress and senate is a-ok with just mauling the fourth amendment. I mean, who the fark am I supposed to believe in politics when nobody actually does what they say they'll do?

DeathByGeekSquad:I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light. He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events. Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it. If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain? I personally wouldn't.

You're strongly against him asking the director of the FBI "Is it classified?" Then, upon being told that the information is not classified, talking about it?

Seriously, read the farking article if you're going to feel so strongly.

I don't have any idea who to vote for... Bush authorized it, Obama abused it... seems like most of the congress and senate is a-ok with just mauling the fourth amendment. I mean, who the fark am I supposed to believe in politics when nobody actually does what they say they'll do?

The people you're voting for do what they're told by the people you don't have the opportunity to vote for, and if they get into the running, they're pretty much carrying their balls in an NSA secured briefcase.

I don't have any idea who to vote for... Bush authorized it, Obama abused it... seems like most of the congress and senate is a-ok with just mauling the fourth amendment. I mean, who the fark am I supposed to believe in politics when nobody actually does what they say they'll do?

The fact is as long as this country and society is dominated by the Military Industrial Complex, voting really is going to accomplish so much. And yeah I'm going there.

Oldiron_79:Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

I don't think we're gonna see a whole lot of that... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal... and this practice is absolutely indefensible... IDGAF whether we're talking about the people who voted for it like Peter King and Diane Feinstein, or the people who implemented it like Bush and Obama... it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party.

FTFA: "McConnell saidduring a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants. "

firefly212:Oldiron_79: Insert the DNC apologists saying "Its not fascism when WE do it" here.

I don't think we're gonna see a whole lot of that... I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal... and this practice is absolutely indefensible... IDGAF whether we're talking about the people who voted for it like Peter King and Diane Feinstein, or the people who implemented it like Bush and Obama... it's an absolutely terrible practice that violates everything the fourth amendment is all about, and to some extent even the first. These people who would use the losses of 9/11 as a rationale for torching our constitution have no place in government, not a farking one of them, regardless of party.

None of the real liberals are doing anything but condemning this in the strongest possible terms.

It's the Democratic party shills who are but, but, but Bushing about it and making other lame ass excuses.

Zeppelininthesky:Did I go back in time? Bush started this whole mess. I am not happy that Obama is keeping it alive.

If you haven't noticed, the country developed a very polar "with us or against us" mentality ever since people questioned the WMD issue of Iraq. If you're not one thing, you're obviously the other. If you don't support Obama's ideas, you supported Bush's ideas. If you don't support Bush ideas, you supported Obama's ideas. The middle ground got crushed. In truth, BOTH presidents are wrong for doing this but our social perspectives of politics got farked up to at least recognize the problem and do something about it instead of just crossing your fingers that the next President, Republican or Democrat, will do it right this thime.

R.A.Danny:whidbey: R.A.Danny: whidbey: It really doesn't help the cause of progressiveness for its proponents to be divided, and that's what you're doing.

Who gets to define "Progressive"?

You know as well as I do it means becoming less conservative as a society, having a strong social safety net, better education, public health, and yes, it also includes respecting basic rights and entitlements.

Like the First Amendment?The Second?The Third?The Fourth? ...Well we can at least count on The Third surviving.

Is this where you dishonestly conflate any liberal/progressive views with what an elected Democrat does? I guess that is fine as long as you, a non-democrat, then say your own views are an approximate average of what the Republican party elects do.

But I'm willing to be you don't do that, and probably in fact would not only deny that your values are that of the other party, but also take some imaginary high road in which you only truly support a perfect, and imaginary, politician.

If I'm wrong on that, fair enough. But I do tire of all the people who talk politics and compare their imaginary candidate to everyone else's real one. Then, surprise surprise, the imaginary one looks better!

Imagine if we played that game with other policies. My view on energy could be one in which everything was cheap and clean. My view on war could be one in which intervention only occurred where it has to, in hindsight, and all other actions are an overreach. Taxation could be an unrealistic view in which we somehow simultaneously take blood from a stone, don't come up with too little revenue, and magically balance the books. You see where that is going. And all I have to do in order to stay on that high horse is live in denial, throw my vote away on a write-in (like another poster in this thread, who purports to have written in Elizabeth Warren for president). It is tiresome and dishonest to see people play that game, and ludicrous when they throw away votes in that manner while sitting at home biatching about it on the internet and talking of ITG 2nd amendment solutions.

Not only did I not pat myself on the back, but I specifically said I could be wrong. It is kind of telling that this is your response to my post though. You know, instead of actually taking an opinion on something other than "time for a second amendment solution" and "everyone should be revolting but for fat and mcdonalds" wargarble. Nothing says 'I respect freedom and law*' like 'I'm going to shoot, or threaten to shoot, people until the democracy does what I want'. I mean hey, it is certainly an option for certain things, but you can't go calling for open revolt every time the voters don't all agree with you. I suppose it conveniently let's you insinuate that everyone else, by way of not revolting (and which political leader have you picked up your gun and marched on, btw?) absolutely loves and supports the particular issue you call for revolt over.

*yes, I said law. Without laws you don't have 4th amendment freedoms to begin with. We can pretend all day long that rights granted by the constitution are fundamental, inherent, god-given, or whatever trite phrase we want, but ultimately it is only society deciding as a group to agree to a code that gives them any power. You don't even have property rights without a society agreeing on what can be owned, what the owner is entitled to, and what the owner currently owns at present.

BullBearMS:Didn't stop the tea party from tossing incumbents on their ass.

And the Partyists who got into office are finding they have zero support to win re-election, at least the ones who didn't play ball with the GOP masters. Although I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, I thought the pseudo-third party was a good thing for the political health of this country. It shook things up. What the Tea Party learned (and it was a good lesson for everyone) is that if you don't play by the party rules you are OUT.

I'm convinced that both the DNC and GOP are so fundamentally broke that neither can be repaired from within. Scrap them both and start over.